Abstract

This Act, Republic Act No. 6539, is a Special Penal Law which seeks to prevent
and penalize carnapping, thus it is otherwise known as the Anti-Carnapping Act of
1972.

This is a careful study of the law which includes defining several terms used in
the law, i.e. carnapping, in which such terms are defined in a detailed manner in order to
avoid more than one interpretation, not only of the terms, but also of any of the
provisions of the law (Sec. 2, R.A. No. 6539).

This study also takes into account that this Act aims at preventing carnapping by
requiring the registration of motor vehicles, motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and
chassis. Registration, however is not only limited to these items on one’s possession, but
also includes sale, transfer, conveyance, substitution or replacement of a motor vehicle
engine, engine block or chassis (Sec. 3-6, Id).

This Act does not only penalize carnapping, but also punishes a person for
violating any of the provisions of said law, as provided in its Penal Provisions (Sec. 13,
Id). There are also provisions dealing with aliens convicted for violation of said law and
the giving of reward to those who voluntarily give information leading to the recovery of
carnapped vehicles (Sec. 15-16, Id).
 Introduction

Prior to the enactment of this Act (Republic Act No. 6539), the unlawful taking of
motor vehicles are classified under theft and robbery, punishable under the Revised Penal
Code. It is the time when ‘carnapping’ is not yet punishable as a crime, following the
principle of Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege, meaning “there is no crime unless
there is a law punishing it.”

During this time, the law does not distinguish carnapping from theft and robbery
thus, carnapping may be classified either as robbery, when it possesses all of the four
elements, namely: (1) intent to gain, (2) unlawful taking, (3) personal property belonging
to another, and (4) violence or intimidation against person or force upon things; or theft,
upon the absence of the fourth element.

However, with the increasing value of motor vehicles, coupled with the rising
demand for these vehicles, the unlawful taking of motor vehicles likewise became
rampant such that the Congress found it imperative to consider ‘carnapping’ a crime, to
define it and to provide for its punishment. Hence, this Act was enacted on August 26,
1972 to remedy, and at the same time, prevent the problem of unlawful taking of motor
vehicles. This Act contains nineteen chapters and it took effect upon its approval.
 Definition of Terms

Section 2 of the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 defines the following terms, to wit:
a) Carnapping – is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to
another without the latter’s consent, or by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things.
b) Motor vehicle – is any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power
using the public highways, but excepting road rollers, trolley cars, street
sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders, fork-lifts, amphibian
trucks, an cranes if not used on public highways, vehicles, which run only on
rails or tracks, and tractors, trailers and traction of engines of all kinds used
exclusively for agricultural purposes. Trailers having any number of wheels,
when propelled or intended to be propelled by attachment to a motor vehicle,
shall be classified as separate motor vehicle with no power rating.
c) Defacing or tampering with a serial number – is he erasing of the factory-inscribed
serial number on the motor vehicle engine, engine block or chassis of any motor
vehicle. Whenever any motor vehicle is found to have a serial number on its
motor engine, engine block or chassis which is different from that which is listed
in the records of the Bureau of Customs for motor vehicles imported into the
Philippines, that motor vehicle shall be considered to have a defaced or tampered
with serial number.
d) Repainting – is changing of a color vehicle by means of painting. There is repainting
whenever the new color of a motor vehicle is different from its color as registered
in the Land Transportation Commission.
e) Body-building – is a job undertaken on a motor vehicle in order to replace its entire
body with a new body.
f) Remodeling – is the instruction of some changes in the shape or form of the body of
the motor vehicle.
g) Dismantling – is the tearing apart, piece by piece or part by part, of a motor vehicle.
h) Overhauling – is the cleaning or repairing of the whole engine of a motor vehicle by
separating the motor engine and its parts from the body of the motor vehicle.
 Review of Related Literature

Listed herein are the cases wherein the law, i.e. Republic Act No. 6539 was
applied.

In People v. Mapili (G.R. No. 103299, August 17, 1993), the Supreme Court held
that a witness’ relationship to a victim, far from being biased, would render it even more
credible as it would be unnatural for a relative who is interested in vindicating a crime to
accuse somebody other than the real culprit. Nor is the testimony of a witness discredited
by the mere fact that he is an employee of the complainant.

In People v. Rous (242 SCRA 732, March 27, 1995), a confession is admissible
until the accused proves that it was given as a result of violence, intimidation, threat, or
promise of reward or leniency. Only after Atty. Ferrer had interviewed Rous and fully
explained the confession and apprised Rous of his rights and the consequences of his
answers did Rous sign said confession. It is clear, therefore, that Rous signed said
confession upon advice and in the presence of his counsel, without any violence,
intimidation or threats being employed against him.

In People v. Cayanan (245 SCRA 66, June 16, 1995), proof of prior agreement to
commit a crime is not essential to establish conspiracy if by overt acts of the accused it is
clear that they acted in unison to pursue their criminal design. In the case at bench, the
connivance to carnap and divest victims of their belongings is conclusively demonstrated
by the coordinated acts of the accused which began with what was made to appear as a
routine vehicle inspection but culminating in the robbery-holdup, the carnapping of the
vehicle of the victims, the death of Eliseo Sampang, and the dramatic arrest of accused-
appellants.

In People v. Legaspi (246 SCRA 213, July 14, 1995), appellants were charged
with two separate informations, one for double murder (Criminal Case No. C-28760[87])
and the other for violation of R.A. No. 6539 (Criminal Case No. C-28761[87]).
Their conviction can only be limited to the crime alleged or necessarily included in the
allegations in the separate informations. What controls is the description of the offense,
as alleged in the information (Santos v. People, 181 SCRA 487 [1990]). While the trial
court can hold a joint trial of the two or more criminal cases and can render a
consolidated decision, it cannot convict the accused of a complex crime constitutive of
the various crimes alleged in the two informations. Thus, the accused were deprived of
their right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against them (1987
Constitution, Art. III, Sec. 14[2]).

In People v. Manuzon (277 SCRA 550, August 18, 1997), the Supreme Court
held when there is evident premeditation not only to steal but to kill, an aggravation of
penalty could be proper. The Office of the Solicitor General correctly points out that the
evident premeditation to kill the victims can reasonably be inferred from the fact that the
latter knew the malefactors well, and the injuries inflicted on Manio and Boiser, as well
as the abandonment of Malinao, were obviously designed to eliminate witnesses to the
unlawful deeds.

In People v. Ferras (289 SCRA 94, April 15, 1998), appellant’s contention that
he could not be held responsible for carnapping because he was not implicated in the
homicide case arising from the same incident is untenable. That matter was the concern
of peace officers and the government prosecutors. If presence in the crime scene may not
be considered indicative of criminal conspiracy in the absence of any proof of concerted
criminal purpose, with more reason, being culprits in a place other than the crime scene
may not imply that the accused are co-conspirators. Relationship alone does not imply
conspiracy. An assumed intimacy between two persons does not have any legal
significance as far as conspiracy is concerned. Conspiracy transcends companionship.

In People v. Tan y Lagamayo (323 SCRA 30, January 21, 2000), the Supreme
Court made a careful comparison between Anti-Carnapping Law and the crimes of
robbery and theft, as defined by the Revised Penal Code. While they possess common
features and characteristics, to wit: unlawful taking, intent to gain, and that personal
property given to another is taken without the latter’s consent. However, the anti-
carnapping law particularly deals with the theft and robbery of motor vehicles. Without
the anti-carnapping law (Republic Act No. 6539), such unlawful taking of a motor
vehicle would fall within the purview of either theft or robbery which was certainly the
case before the enactment of said statute.
Moreover, if an owner believes that his vehicle would be returned to him for friendship’s
sake then he could not have at the same time also believed that friend would carnap his
car.

In People v. Gamer y Malit (326 SCRA 660, February 29, 2000), it is not merely
any identification which would suffice for conviction of the accused. It must be positive
identification made by a credible witness or witnesses, in order to attain the level of
acceptability and credibility to sustain moral certainty concerning the person of the
offender.

In People v. Paramil (329 SCRA 450, March 31, 2000), the death penalty
imposed on the accused-appellants for the crime of carnapping cannot be imposed
because the killing of the driver was not alleged in the information. The crime alleged
being only carnapping under the second clause of Section 14, the proper penalty to be
imposed must not be more than seventeen years and four months and not more than thirty
years.

In People v. Reanzares (334 SCRA 624, June 29, 2000), the Supreme Court held
that “in the interpretation of an information, what controls is the description of the
offense charged and not merely its designation.”

In People v. Sirad (335 SCRA 114, July 5, 2000), the Supreme Court corrected
the error of the trial court declaring that “there is no crime denominated as carnapping
with homicide.” The proper denomination for the crime is carnapping as defined and
penalized under Republic Act No. 6539, Sections 2 and 14. Under Republic Act no.
6539, Section 14, the penalty for carnapping shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
Considering that at the time of the commission of the crime the death penalty was
suspended, accused are hereby sentenced to reclusion perpetua.

In People v. Sia (370 SCRA 123, November 21, 2001), the Supreme Court held
that: “it is a well-settled rule that when a person is found in possession of a thing taken in
the doing of a recent wrongful act, he is presumed to be the taker and the doer of the act.”

In People v. Dela Cruz (384 SCRA 453, July 11, 2002), the Supreme Court finds
that the foregoing facts constitute an unbroken chain of events that undeniably point to
the culpability of accused-appellants for violation of the Anti-Carnapping Act. The
testimony of the police officers carried with it the presumption of regularity in the
performance of their functions.

In People v. Garcia Jr. (400 SCRA 229, April 1, 2003), it must be stressed that
the acts committed by the appellant constituted the crime of carnapping even if the
deceased was the driver of the vehicle and not the owner. The settled rule is that, in
crimes of unlawful taking of property through intimidation or violence, it is not necessary
that the person unlawfully divested of the personal property be the owner thereof.

In People v. Latayada (423 SCRA 237, February 18, 2004), Republic Act 7659
introduced three amendments to the last clause of Section 14: (1) the change of the
penalty from life imprisonment to reclusion perpetua, (2) the inclusion of rape, and (3)
change of the phrase “in the commission of the carnapping” to “in the course of the
commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof.”
 Summary

I. Items to be Registered

Section 3 requires the registration, with the Land Transportation Commission, of

the following items:
1) Motor vehicle
2) Engine block
3) Chassis

II. The Functions of the Land Transportation Commission

Under Section 4, the Land Transportation (LTC) shall have the following
functions:
1) To keep a permanent registry of motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and
chassis of all motor vehicles;
2) To specify their type therein;
3) To record the make, type and serial numbers;
4) To state therein the names and addresses of the present and previous
owners; and
5) To furnish copies of the registry and of all entries made thereon to the
Philippine Constabulary and to the LTC’s regional, provincial and city
branch offices.

III. Transactions Requiring Registration

Section 5 requires the registration of the sale, transfer, conveyance, substitution

or replacement of a motor vehicle engine, engine block or chassis with the LTC.
IV. Purpose of Securing a Clearance with the Philippine Constabulary

As provided for in Section 6, the purpose of securing a clearance with the PC is

for the latter to be able to verify whether or not the motor vehicle or its numbered parts
are in the list of carnapped vehicles or stolen motor vehicle parts.

V. Duties of the Collector of Customs

Section 7 prescribes the following duties of the Collector of Customs, namely:

1) To make a report of the shipment [of imported motor vehicle engines,
engine blocks, chassis or body];
2) To specify the make, type and serial numbers [if any]; and
3) To state the names and addresses of the owner or consignee thereof.

VI. Duties of Importers, Distributors and Sellers of Motor Vehicles

1) To keep a permanent record of his stocks, stating therein their type, make
and serial numbers, and the names and addresses of the persons from
whom they were acquired and the names and addresses of the persons to
whom they were sold; (Section 8)

2) To render an accurate monthly report of his transactions in motor vehicles

to the Land Transportation Commission. (Id)

VII. Requirement for Clearance

The applicant shall present a statement under oath containing the type, make
and serial numbers of the engine, chassis and body, if any, and the complete list of
the spare parts of the motor vehicle to be assembled or rebuilt together with the
names and addresses of the sources thereof (Section 10).
 Note: In the case of motor vehicle engines to be mounted on motor boats, motor
bancas and other light water vessels, the applicant shall secure a permit from the
Philippine Coast Guard, which office shall in turn furnish the Land Transportation
Commission the pertinent data concerning the motor vehicle engines including
their type, make and serial numbers.

VIII. Prescription of Penalties

The Penalties prescribed in this Act are divided into two parts, to wit:

1) Penal Provisions - Section 13 punishes violations of any of the provisions

of the Act with:
 Imprisonment of not less than two years nor more than six years; and
 A fine equal in amount to the acquisition cost of the motor vehicle,
motor vehicle engine or any other part involved in the violation

Notes: In case violator is a juridical person, the penalty herein provided

shall be imposed on its president or secretary and/or members of the
board of directors or any of its officers and employees who may have
directly participated in the violation.

In case violator is a government official, he shall, in addition to the

penalty prescribed in the preceding paragraph, be dismissed from the
service with prejudice to his reinstatement and with disqualification from
voting or being voted for in any election and from appointment to any
public office.
 2) Penalty for Carnapping (basis Section 14)

When carnapping is committed without violence and intimidation

of persons, or force upon things:
 Imprisonment for not less than fourteen years and eight months
and not more than seventeen years and four months.

When carnapping is committed with violence and intimidation of

persons, or force upon things:
 Imprisonment for not less than seventeen years and four
months and not more than thirty years.

When the driver or the occupant is killed or raped in the course of

the commission of the carnapping or on the occasion thereof:
 Reclusion perpetua to death.

IX. Aliens

Pursuant to Section 15, aliens convicted under the provisions of this Act shall
be deported immediately after service of sentence without further proceedings by
the Deportation Board.

X. Rewards (basis Section 16)

Who may be entitled to reward?

Any person who voluntarily gives information leading to the recovery of
carnapped vehicles and for the conviction of the persons charged with carnapping.

Who may determine the reward?

The Philippine Constabulary may fix the amount of reward.
 Conclusion

With the definition and punishment of carnapping, through the enactment of

Republic Act No, 6539, it made the people even more aware that carnapping is a crime
punishable by law and, just like the Revised Penal Code and other Special laws, R.A.
6539 likewise provides a deterrent effect to the majority, if not all, of the people of the
Philippines.

Penal laws establish a deterrent effect among the populace considering that they
serve as ‘whips’ to chastise the people, reminding them constantly that the law always
seeks to maintain order, and in order to attain such order, the system of rewards and
punishments was established, to encourage compliance and to punish non-compliance.

Republic Act No. 6539 serves as a special law supplementary to the Revised
Penal Code in the sense that it defines and penalizes an additional crime, i.e. carnapping
that the Code failed to do such.

In short, it was R.A. 6539 that filled the hollow spaces of our Revised Penal
Code. The hollow spaces that seek to define and penalize carnapping.